Family Integrity

Tag: smacking/spanking

  • Some Kids Are Never Spanked – Do They Turn Out Better?

    Some Kids Are Never Spanked – Do They Turn Out Better?

    Po Bronson

    For decades, research on spanking was challenged by the lack of a control group to compare against – almost all kids (90+%) had been spanked at least once, at some time in their early lives. New research shows that now up to 25% of kids are never spanked, so it’s a fair question: How are they turning out? Are they turning out better? Surprisingly, they’re not.

    In NurtureShock, we described some extensive cross-ethnic and international research on spanking by Drs. Jennifer Lansford and Ken Dodge.

    Their data suggested that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use. To explain this shocker, the scholars suggested that in cultures or communities where spanking is common, parents are less agitated when administering spankings. Spanking almost never—when combined with losing your temper—can be worse than spanking frequently.* But what about the third option: not spanking them at all? Unfortunately, there’s been little study of this, because children who’ve never been spanked aren’t easy to find. Most kids receive physical discipline at least once in their life. But times are changing, and parents today have numerous alternatives to spanking. The result is that kids are spanked less often overall, and kids who’ve never been spanked are becoming a bigger slice of the pie in long-term population studies. One of those new population studies underway is called Portraits of American Life. It involves interviews of 2,600 people and their adolescent children every three years for the next 20 years. Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe is working with the first wave of data on the teens. It turns out that almost a quarter of these teens report they were never spanked. So this is a perfect opportunity to answer a very simple question: are kids who’ve never been spanked any better off, long term? Gunnoe’s summary is blunt: “I didn’t find that in my data.” The study asked teens how old they were when their last spanking occurred, and how often they would get spanked as a child. That was cross-referenced against the data on bad outcomes we might fear spanking could lead to years later: antisocial behavior, early sexual activity, physical violence, and depression. But Gunnoe went further. She also looked at many good outcomes we might want for our teens, such as academic rank, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living when they grow up. Studies of corporal punishment almost never look at good outcomes, but Gunnoe wanted to really tease out the differences in these kids. What she discovered was another shocker: those who’d been spanked just when they were young—ages 2 to 6—were doing a little better as teenagers than those who’d never been spanked. On almost every measure. A separate group of teens had been spanked until they were in elementary school. Their last spanking had been between the ages of 7 and 11. These teens didn’t turn out badly, either. Compared with the never-spanked, they were slightly worse off on negative outcomes, but a little better off on the good outcomes. Only the teenagers who were still being spanked clearly showed problems. Gunnoe is now looking at how parenting styles might explain these patterns—especially the mystery of why the never-spanked are doing worse than expected. Gunnoe doesn’t know what she’ll find, but my thoughts jump immediately to the work of Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, whom we wrote about in NurtureShock. Schoppe-Sullivan found that children of progressive dads were acting out more in school. This was likely because the fathers were inconsistent disciplinarians; they were emotionally uncertain about when and how to punish, and thus they were reinventing the wheel every time they had to reprimand their child. And there was more conflict in their marriage over how best to parent, and how to divide parenting responsibilities. I admit to taking a leap here, but if the progressive parents are the ones who never spank (or at least there’s a large overlap), then perhaps the consistency of discipline is more important than the form of discipline. In other words, spanking regularly isn’t the problem; the problem is having no regular form of discipline at all. _____________ * As we wrote in our book, even in cultures were spanking is more common, its use is still very rare (perhaps once or twice in a kid's entire lifetime), and we aren't talking about severe beatings of a child, but a swat across the behind. Additionally, the work of Dodge and Lansford (who remain adamantly against corporal punishment) suggests that, in societies that consider spanking unacceptable, parents still spank—but they hit in anger—when they've lost control. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/nurtureshock/archive/2009/12/30/never-been-spanked.aspx

  • Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    MEDIA RELEASE

    17 January 2010

    Time Out Targeted as Next Taboo of Parenting

    Family First NZ says that ‘time out’ is now being labeled as harmful to children based on flawed ideology and without any research to back up the claims, as was the case with the smacking debate.

    “Last week, an Australian parenting expert labeled time out as shameful and humiliating, joining other so-called parenting experts who claim that time out creates hurt, anger and defiance in a child ultimately harming them. They also claim that nervous habits can result, and that children should not be told they are naughty,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “Once again, these unsubstantiated and ideologically flawed claims and latest fads in parenting by academics simply undermine the confidence of parents to raise their children in a positive and common sense way. Where does it stop? Will it soon be unacceptable to withdraw privileges or ‘ground’ a child – perhaps it will soon be even unacceptable to frown at a child who is misbehaving!”

    “Great and law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to changed their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology. Yet all these techniques have been proven throughout the generations to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “The discipline, training and correction of children, and techniques being used to achieve this, are being demonized with no justification.”

    “For example, research earlier this month has shown that light smacking is not harmful and can even be beneficial to children.”

    “Parents should be given the freedom and respect to raise their own children in a common sense and non-abusive way rather than being harassed with the latest theories of child rearing from so-called experts,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    It’s time the government listened to thorough and balanced research, and to the experience of parents and grandparents on smacking, time out and other issues related to raising responsible and law abiding citizens, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of academics and state agencies who have misdefined positive parenting and child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Pro-Spanking (Smacking) Studies May Have Global Effect

    Pro-Spanking Studies May Have Global Effect

    Thursday, 07 Jan 2010 11:11 AM

    By: Theodore Kettle

    Two recent analyses – one psychological, the other legal – may debunk lenient modern parenting the way the Climategate e-mail scandal has short circuited global warming alarmism.

    A study entailing 2,600 interviews pertaining to corporal punishment, including the questioning of 179 teenagers about getting spanked and smacked by their parents, was conducted by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    Gunnoe’s findings, announced this week: “The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data.”

    Those who were physically disciplined performed better than those who weren’t in a whole series of categories, including school grades, an optimistic outlook on life, the willingness to perform volunteer work, and the ambition to attend college, Gunnoe found. And they performed no worse than those who weren’t spanked in areas like early sexual activity, getting into fights, and becoming depressed. She found little difference between the sexes or races.

    Another study published in the Akron Law Review last year examined criminal records and found that children raised where a legal ban on parental corporal punishment is in effect are much more likely to be involved in crime.

    A key focus of the work of Jason M. Fuller of the University of Akron Law School was Sweden, which 30 years ago became the first nation to impose a complete ban on physical discipline and is in many respects “an ideal laboratory to study spanking bans,” according to Fuller.

    Since the spanking ban, child abuse rates in Sweden have exploded over 500 percent, according to police reports. Even just one year after the ban took effect, and after a massive government public education campaign, Fuller found that “not only were Swedish parents resorting to pushing, grabbing, and shoving more than U.S. parents, but they were also beating their children twice as often.”

    After a decade of the ban, “rates of physical child abuse in Sweden had risen to three times the U.S. rate” and “from 1979 to 1994, Swedish children under seven endured an almost six-fold increase in physical abuse,” Fuller’s analysis revealed.

    “Enlightened” parenting also seems to have produced increased violence later. “Swedish teen violence skyrocketed in the early 1990s, when children that had grown up entirely under the spanking ban first became teenagers,” Fuller noted. “Preadolescents and teenagers under fifteen started becoming even more violent toward their peers. By 1994, the number of youth criminal assaults had increased by six times the 1984 rate.”

    Since Sweden, dozens of countries have banned parental corporal punishment, like Germany, Italy, and in 2007 New Zealand, where using force to correct children entails full criminal penalties, and where a mother cannot even legally take her child’s hand to bring him where he refuses to go.

    The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, meanwhile, challenges laws permitting any physical punishment of children and has called on all governments in the world to prohibit every form of physical discipline, including within the family.

    In the U.S., the National Association of Social Workers has declared that all physical punishment of children has harmful effects and should be stopped; social workers are being trained to advocate against physical discipline when they visit homes. And in 2007, San Francisco Bay area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber unsuccessfully proposed legislation imposing a California state ban on spanking children under the age of four.

    Contrary to popular belief, the pediatrician and leftist political activist Dr. Benjamin Spock did not popularize parental leniency. In early editions of his famously bestselling book, “Baby and Child Care,” Spock did not rule out spanking, (although he did later); on the contrary, Spock called for “clarity and consistency of the parents’ leadership,” considered kindness and devotion to be a necessity for parents who spank, and believed that the inability to be firm was “the commonest problem of parents in America.”

    Spock’s 21st century disciples, however, depart from his original precepts. DrSpock.com, which “embodies the strength and identity of world-renowned pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, providing parents with the latest expert content from today’s leading authorities in parenting,” and embraces Dr. Spock’s “philosophy and vision,” declares that “Punishment is not the key to discipline.”

    The parental guidance website contends that “Spanking teaches children that the larger, stronger person has the power to get his way, whether or not he is in the right.” DrSpock.com concludes that “The American tradition of spanking may be one reason that there is much more violence in our country than in any other comparable nation.”

    Of like mind is the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose official policy says: “Despite its common acceptance, spanking is a less effective strategy than timeout or removal of privileges for reducing undesired behavior in children. Although spanking may immediately reduce or stop an undesired behavior, its effectiveness decreases with subsequent use.”

    The academy adds: “The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse. Thus, at best, spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situations.”

    “Timeout,” a widely popularized alternative to physical discipline in which a child is separated from a situation or environment after misbehaving, was devised in the 1960’s by behavioral researcher Arthur Staats as “a very mild punishment, the removal from a more reinforcing situation.”

    Gunnoe’s findings are being largely ignored by the U.S. media, but made a splash in British newspapers. It is not the first time her work has been bypassed by the press. Her 1997 work showing that customary spanking reduced aggression also went largely unreported.

    Nor is she alone in her conclusions. Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley and her teams of professional researchers over a decade conducted what is considered the most extensive and methodologically thorough child development study yet done. They examined 164 families, tracking their children from age four to 14. Baumrind found that spanking can be helpful in certain contexts and discovered “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.”

    She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers.

    As in climate change, politicians all over the world seem out of touch with the most rigorous science regarding parental discipline. The newest research could constitute powerful ammunition to parents rights activists seeking to reverse the global trend of intrusive governments muscling themselves between the rod and the child.

    From:

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669

  • Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    MEDIA RELEASE

    4 January 2010

    Latest Smacking Research Shows Benefits

    Family First NZ is welcoming the latest research showing that light and reasonable smacking is beneficial to children in their development, and despite claims by government funded groups, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use.

    “Previous research has not been able to compare children who have been smacking with those who have never been smacked, because children who’ve never been smacked were hard to find as most kids received physical discipline at least once in their life,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “But due to the pervading anti-smacking ideology, this has changed.”

    “Yet this study found that young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been smacked. Children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined. Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioural problems.”

    Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children. Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

    This follows earlier research from Duke University which showed that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use because parents are less agitated and more consistent.

    “This is more evidence to go alongside previous NZ-based research from Professor Fergusson at Christchurch School of Medicine and from Otago University showing that light smacking is not child abuse, is actually beneficial when used in a positive and loving family environment, and should definitely not be a criminal offence in this country,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “Law-abiding kiwi parents are being forced to change their parenting techniques based on flawed and unproven ideology.  Yet these techniques are proven to be beneficial to raising law-abiding and positive members of society.”

    “It’s time the government listened to the thorough and balanced research on smacking and the concerns of parents and grandparents raising or who have raised great kids, rather than the flawed ideology and scaremongering of government funded groups which should be focusing on actual child abuse.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director  Mob. 027 55 555 42



    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Some Correction Needed, But John Key says it’s OK!

    From Family First NZ

    Some Correction

    Needed



    But John Key says it’s OK!


    Prime Minister John Key and Nigel Latta say the anti-smacking law is working well, that there is no evidence of good parents being criminalised, that Family First has been misled by parents , and that light smacking shouldn’t be a criminal offence .

    So here’s some questions:
    * Why did CYF formally apologise to this family for the way they handled a smacking complaint?
    CYFS says sorry to ‘traumatised’ family
    NZ Herald Jul 31, 2009
    * Why did this parent get prosecuted ?
    ‘I asked for help but instead got conviction’
    NZ Herald Jul 28, 2009 A Wellington solo father says he went to Child, Youth and Family Services for help – and ended up with a conviction for smacking his daughter.
    * Why was this family investigated and referred to a government agency?
    School dobs mum to CYF for hand smack
    Sunday Star Times Oct 28 2007
    * The law (and Plunket / Barnardos / Childrens Commissioner / Families Commissioner) says a smack is illegal . But John Key says its acceptable and shouldn’t be a criminal offence . Who’s correct ?
    “Lightly smacking a child will be in the course of parenting for some parents and I think that’s acceptable,” Mr Key said. Asked if he had just said it was acceptable to lightly smack a child, Mr Key replied “Yes, I think so” and said the law was clear that such matters should not be treated as a criminal offence [that is only true if the smack is not ‘for the purposes of correction’ and is given for one of the permitted reasons. “It’s up to individual parents to decide how they’re going to parent their children. My view is that it will depend on the circumstances and how you want to raise your child,” Mr Key said – Source NZ Herald
    (By the way, we agree!!)
    * Why didn’t the report interview and seek feedback from kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting?
    * Why didn’t the report address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents , and threatening to report them to the police or CYF?
    * Why didn’t the report address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents ?
    * Why didn’t the report address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence policy which demands zero tolerance?
    * Why didn’t the report address why so many cases of what are supposed to be serious ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments , and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all?
    * Why didn’t the report address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.

    WHY?
    When we get some answers we’ll let you know!

    But please be aware – the latest report does not answer these important questions .

    Have a great week


    Bob McCoskrie
    National Director

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/

    Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

  • Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

    Family First NZ

    MEDIA RELEASE

    7 December 2009

    Latest Smacking Law Review Offers No Comfort

    Family First NZ is dismissing yet another report on the anti-smacking law which fails to address the real issues and concerns over the law change.

    “This is the eighth report in just over two years on the law change. There have never been so many reports in such a short time frame on a law change in an attempt to sell it,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The police have done six reports, a report from the ministry of Social Development, and now this report commissioned by the Prime Minister in response to the overwhelming rejection of the law in the recent Referendum.”

    “We weren’t expecting miracles in this report because one of the panel members Peter Hughes from the MSD has only recently released a report where he admits that he cannot conclude whether the law is achieving its purpose, and he cannot conclusively say that good parents are not being criminalized or victimized by this law with unnecessary state intervention. This is primarily because he doesn’t talk to them!”

    “A senior police office who examined the prosecutions of a number of parents as a result of the new law says that without exception, the public interest was not served in pursuing prosecutions.”

    “In the latest report, it fails in the following areas:

    • it fails to address the concerns of kiwi parents as to what effect it has had on their parenting
    • it fails to address the issue of children dobbing in their own parents, and threatening to report them to the police or CYF
    • it fails to address the concern expressed by police and youth workers regarding the increasing rate of assaults by young people on their parents
    • it fails to address the procedural conflict between the smacking law which allows ‘discretion’ versus the family violence police which demands zero tolerance
    • it fails to address why so many cases of what are supposed to be ‘assaults’ are receiving inconsequential punishments, and why so many investigations are ending up with a warning and in many cases, no action at all
    • it fails to address the effect of criminalising an action (light smacking for the purpose of correction) which most NZ’ers simply don’t believe should be treated as a criminal offence under the law.”

    “This report is another government-funded sales pitch for a flawed law which has been resoundingly rejected by New Zealanders. John Key promised ‘comfort’ for parents, but it’s not comforting when he ignores almost 90% in a referendum, and retains a law which he admits is a ‘dog’s breakfast’, badly drafted, and extremely vague.”

    “A law that requires so many compromises, guidelines, helplines, reviews, and parent education could be easily fixed with a simple amendment-the Boscawen amendment. That’s what parents deserve” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie – National Director

    Mob. 027 55 555 42

    Related document:

    Review of New Zealand Police and Child, Youth and Family Policies and Procedures relating to the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (pdf, 1675 Kb)

  • MSD report on anti-smacking law reveals more wasted paper

    MSD report on anti-smacking law reveals more wasted paper

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Kiwi Party Leader, Larry Baldock, said the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) report confirms there is no clear evidence anywhere that the law change is making children safer. If the Police and CYF continue to claim it is business as usual then how come politicians love to say, as the Minister has done again today, “that the law is working as intended!”

    Mr Baldock asked, “Was the purpose of the law to make life difficult for good parents while achieving no significant benefit for the poor kids in this country who are being abused and killed on a regular basis?”

    “Peter Hughes’ conclusion in paragraphs 2 & 79 basically reveals once again that he does not understand the reality of what has happened in the homes of good parents all over this country.

    “He states, “In summary, I have not been able to find evidence to show that parents are being subject to unnecessary state intervention for occasionally lightly smacking their children.”

    “On the contrary, State intervention occurred on a massive scale when 113 MPs passed a law making smacking a criminal offence.

    When little Johnny or Susie comes home and tells Mum and Dad that the teacher told them they could report their parents to the police if they gave them a smack, that, Mr Hughes, is state intervention of the highest order and is why a massive 87.4% ‘NO’ vote occurred in our recent referendum.

    “In paragraph 42 of the report Peter Hughes informs us that CYF has not altered its policy since the introduction of the ‘anti-smacking law’.  All that that confirms is that his department has had an anti-smacking policy in force for some time.  This will come as no surprise to those New Zealanders who have had dealings with CYF social workers and staff.

    Ends

    Contact
    Larry Baldock
    021864833

  • John Qweasal, Prime Minister of NZ – in-depth Interview on smacking referendum

  • Family Integrity #483 — We Need Your Feet!

    A special request.

    We need you! – your energy – and your networking ability – to get the message out!

    The March for Democracy will be held
    1.30pm Sat 21 November, Queen St Auckland


    and will be calling on the government to amend s59 of the Crimes Act so that the law does not treat light smacking for the purpose of correction as a criminal offence, and to respect the democratic voice of NZ’ers.

    Please mark this date in your diaries as we make a stand for families and for democracy in New Zealand.

    Would you please consider distributing this info amongst your contacts and spreading the word?

    Colin Craig, an Auckland businessman who is funding the march, says “I find it deeply disturbing that such a clear message from the people of this country to government has been ignored. My forefathers fought for a democracy and in a democracy the government does not pass and retain laws that nearly 90% of the people don’t want. It is my turn to help fight for the rights of ordinary New Zealanders.”

    He’s absolutely right – but he’s not just moaning about it.

    He’s putting his money where his mouth is. He wants to host the biggest public march NZ has seen – and we need to get in behind him.

    When families speak with such a loud and united voice, as they have on the issue of the anti-smacking law, the politicians must not be allowed to ignore it. It is significant that politicians are willing to accept democracy when it is to their benefit but are willing to blatantly ignore it when it highlights wrong decisions. Voters clearly called for a law change – not comfort and more reviews of a rejected law change.

    An average of 83% in the polls over the past 4 years have consistently opposed the anti-smacking law. The high threshold of 285,000 signatures was met for having the Referendum (in fact 310,000 valid signatures in the end), 87.4% of those who voted supported the law change, and yet within a couple of hours, the result was completely dismissed.

    A Private Members Bill by ACT MP John Boscawen drawn just 3 days later, against all the odds, was then unilaterally ‘kicked for touch’ by the Prime Minister.

    This is now far greater than just the smacking issue. It’s an issue of democracy in New Zealand, and the dismissal of the views of an overwhelming majority of voters by our elected representatives.

    It may not be the smacking issue that ‘presses your button’. But imagine if an issue you were passionate about – that had the overwhelming support of the public – was simply ignored, belittled, and dismissed by the politicians. Is that the kind of representative democracy we want?

    It appears that political parties are keen to accept petitions in their favour – United Future on daylight saving,  Labour on night-classes – and support binding Referendums – National on MMP, Labour on the Super City, and the Greens on the Monarchy – but when it’s a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum, they suddenly go deaf!

    Families need to speak up for democracy – and this is our opportunity.

    Official Website : www.themarch.co.nz

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Sign up now to received FREE email updates of issues affecting families – be informed! http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Sign_Up

  • Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand

    Larry Baldock

    Larry Baldock

    The Kiwi Party
    Press Release

    Open Letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand,
    Parliament,
    Wellington

    26 August, 2009

    Dear Prime Minister,

    As you are aware I have led and organised the recent Citizens Initiated Referendum on the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act that has given all New Zealanders a chance to voice their strongly held views on a controversial subject. This was only possible because of the support given by a marvellous group of volunteers who gave their time and resources freely.

    An important part of that group, at least in the first months of the campaign, were many of your Caucus members who strongly opposed the Sue Bradford’s bill, and actively collected signatures for the petition to force the referendum.

    Given this common history in the referendum, and the very strong result, it would seem reasonable then that I may have been invited by you to discuss some proposals to address the widespread concerns of the majority of this country’s citizens.

    In contrast, I have learnt from news reports that, prior to the referendum results being announced you have been involved in discussions with those we discover now only represent just fewer than 12 percent of the Referendum vote, such as Sue Bradford and Deborah Morris-Travers. In fact it seems that advisors from the ‘Yes” vote coalition are literally crawling all over our ‘House of Representatives.’

    I shall therefore endeavour to communicate my concerns through this open letter and hope you may grant me an opportunity for personal dialogue as well.

    The final results show that 87.4 percent voted ‘No!’ This means more New Zealanders voted ‘No’ in this referendum than voted for the National party in the 2008 elections and that the turnout at 56 percent was higher than for the referendum on MMP in 1992.

    Your views about the rights of parents and your disapproval of the way the Helen Clark-led government ignored the majority opposition to the Bradford law are well known and documented. This makes your current position very difficult to understand and impossible to justify or defend.

    When you try to reassure concerned parents with your personal promises, it seems, from the outside at least, that you are falling prey to the attitude that your predecessor developed wherein she thought as Prime Minister her opinion mattered more than anyone else’s, and that it was within her power to take care of everyone.

    With all due respect John, you will not be Prime Minister forever. If you leave the Bradford law on our statutes any future government will be able to change the police and CYFS policy guidelines by executive decree, without reference to the democratically elected House of Representatives. This would render your short-term proposals aimed at giving comfort to the good parents of New Zealand null and void.

    Prime Minister, good parents do not want words of comfort they want legislative change!

    Your continued claims that the ‘law is working well’ are not enhancing anyone’s view of your comprehension of what the law was supposed to do, and what it is in fact accomplishing.

    As a parliamentarian you will know that the purpose of a bill is summed up in its ‘purpose clause’.
    It is impossible to properly evaluate whether or not the law as enacted is working well, except by reference to the purpose clause of the Bill itself.

    Sue Bradford’s purpose clause was “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction”.

    Here in clause 4 of her Bill we have the purpose and the means of achieving that purpose, defined very clearly, namely to reduce violence towards children (child abuse) by abolishing the use of parental force for correction!

    The continued abuse and sickening deaths of children since the Bill was passed is proof that it is not achieving that purpose. The awful abuse continues, and Sue Bradford herself readily admits, “My bill was never intended to solve this problem”. (National Radio Dec 2007)

    So not only is the law not working, but also that lofty goal has long since been abandoned by its sponsor!

    When you claim that no good parents are being criminalised I think you are referring to ‘prosecuted’.  The police records do indicate that the numbers of prosecutions are low at this point for smacking or minor acts of discipline offences, but the truth is that every parent that continues to use a smack for correction is automatically criminalised.

    After all, wouldn’t we consider a thief a criminal once they stole possessions that were not their own, regardless of whether they were caught by the police and prosecuted? After being found guilty in court their status would then be changed to that of a convicted criminal.

    The number of prosecutions by the police of good parents is therefore not evidence of whether the law is working or not.

    The law has an effect on every good parent in this country even if a single prosecution has not been laid.

    You may not have had to deal with the circumstances created when your child comes home from school to announce that they had been informed that they should report Mummy or Daddy to the teacher if they are smacked, but many have.

    Your proposal to solve this dilemma appears to be that parents should wilfully break the law of the country, while disciplining their children for breaking the rules within the family home! This forces many parents into the awful position of a hypocritical ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ type parenting which should not be recommended by anyone, least of all the Prime Minister.

    A useful test of the efficacy of the new law might be to determine how many more prosecutions the police are bringing before the courts against real child abusers. This is because supporters of the amendment to Sec 59 constantly claim that the police were hindered from prosecuting real child abusers because the previous Sec 59 defence of reasonable force meant they could easily be acquitted. They claimed that as a result the police were not even bothering to bring charges against these criminals.

    This of course was not supported by a proper study of case law over the past 15 years, or the police statistics.

    However, if this is the justification for the new law we should have seen a dramatic increase in the number of police prosecutions for crimes against our children, given that any use of force by parents for correction is now prohibited.

    Police records and statements by Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope in the last police report on the new law saying that “its business as usual for the police” clearly confirms that the law is not working in that regard.

    There is only one way in which it could be claimed the law is working, (though I cannot believe that this is what you mean), and that it is that progress is being made towards the total abolition of the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.

    While prosecutions at this stage are low, the latest police report confirms that the police have issued a considerable number of warnings. What is the purpose of those warning Prime Minister? Does not a warning imply that the police have informed the traumatised family members that have just been subject to an investigation that they should not use force for the purpose of correction again, or else prosecution would likely follow. Surely that must be the case.

    Because the purpose of the law is to ultimately stop parents from using any force for the purpose of correction!

    All your promises and words of comfort are meaningless since the police are to be independent in enforcing the law in New Zealand. We have had enough of the police asking the PM whether they should prosecute or not with ‘paintergate’ and the failure to prosecute Heather Simpson over the illegal spending of taxpayer money in the 2005 elections.

    New Zealanders are not stupid and they were not confused about the referendum question. They have understood from the very beginning what Sue Bradford and her supporter’s real intentions were. Surely you are not unaware of her motives, or have you now joined with her and the UN in their plan to run our country?
    That plan was made clear in the Green party’s first press release back in 2003 when they announced they had drafted an ‘anti-smacking law’ to “stop parents physically punishing their children in line with UN demands.”

    A recent survey confirmed a reduction in the number of parents using smacking for correction, which is not surprising given that it has been a criminal offence for the last two years. Unfortunately, such a decline has not resulted in a less violent society.

    I guess this does reveal though, that the law is indeed working, but is that what you and the National party were committed to? Have you really become so aligned with Sue Bradford and the 12 percent minority of the country who view all discipline as violence, that you are pleased with this outcome?

    If so, it must be said that your party has made a flip-flop in policy between May and June 2007, without consultation with your supporters, sufficient to make the 1984 Labour government look like angels of democracy!

    Given that a recent Colmar Brunton poll showed that 90 percent of National Party voters were going to vote ‘no,’ and that the result from your own electorate was about the same, surely there are many of your loyal voters who would be shocked at the change in your views on parenting?

    One of the things that made a positive impression on me, when I discussed with you how you would vote on the Prostitution Law Reform Act back in 2003, was that you said that when you were made aware of your electorates’ opposition to the proposed bill, you felt you were obligated to represent them and vote against the law.

    Surely you have not abandoned your principles in just a few short years?

    Prime Minister I have no personal interest in becoming your enemy, but I will speak up on behalf of 87.4 percent of Kiwis who voted ‘No’.

    Many of these people feel they have lost all hope of being heard by politicians in their own country. As my wife and I criss-crossed the country many times over the 18 months in which we collected signatures to force the referendum, we encountered a great deal of despair and distrust towards parliamentarians. Having been one myself, this saddened me a great deal.

    I know that most MPs generally work hard and try to do what they can to make New Zealand a better place.

    However, we both know that most Kiwis do not evaluate their MPs on the basis of their daily activities but on events like this, when there is a clear choice to be made between listening to the wishes of the people or following ones own ideas or political agenda.

    Given the current political landscape where both the Government and the ‘Queens Loyal Opposition’ MPs in this country are refusing to listen to the voice of the people and stand up for democracy, it is entirely possible that you may be able to disregard this referendum and survive politically for a few more years.

    I am absolutely convinced however, that you will do almost irreparable harm to our democracy, and strike a deep wound in the hearts of so many of your countrymen and countrywomen.

    I humble urge you to reconsider your current position,

    Yours sincerely

    Larry Baldock